dantebk

Has anyone ever had this problem?
 
So I've gotten all 12 achievements in DeathSpank.  But when I go to the Achievements page on my Xbox Dashboard, it says I have 185 achievement points and 11 / 12 unlocked.  If I click on the game itself, however, it DOES show all 12 achievement icons unlocked.  I don't think it's counting towards my overall achievement score either.  It's been missing this one achievement (I'm not sure which one, though it must be worth 15 points) for 2 or 3 days now.

" Since it is based on Unreal engine, how "Unreally" are the visuals? "

" Good god.  I've played all but 5 of those.  Some I only spent a weekend with but my god i had no idea i really had played that many games. "

" I've played 120 of those.  Of the remaining games, very few of them are ones I would go back and play, but there are a few; some I even own already and simply haven't gotten around to. :P "

Seems like the consensus is that the classics are worth it, but that some age better than others.  Not sure why Deus Ex is such a talking point.  LOL  I do actually own Deus Ex on Steam but never installed it.  (confession: I own quite a few older games on Steam that I've never installed)
 
@BeachThunder: In fairness to myself, I've played a LOT of adventure games.  I even review them for AdventureGamers.com.  But I played Day of the Tentacle in high school, before it was a "classic," and it didn't work for me in the same way Secret of Monkey Island or Gabriel Knight or Quest For Glory worked for me.
 
@CaptainObvious: I kind of think you have a good idea there, where you meant it as a suggestion or not.  I tend to try to finish every game I start, unless I'm just really not digging it, but maybe I could give myself some leeway when tackling The List.  It would be a lot easier to play 116 games for 2 hours each than like 10-15 hours each. 

So I'd been thinking about the Top 200 Games of All Time list that Game Informer did last year, and I started thinking it might be worthwhile as someone who considers himself to be passionate about video games to have played all (or almost all) of these titles.  I began by making a list of the games using Giant Bomb's list feature, and then marking down which ones I'd already played (so far: 84 out of 200).  Then I wrote a little blurb for each one on the list, which took a while.  In the process of writing the blurbs, I came to realize that in many cases the games I really loved were the ones I played when they were released, and the games I felt "meh" about  were the ones I played later on.  
 
How much of a game's quality (or really, this probably applies to a lot of pop culture) is found in the context of the time?  If I've never played the first Metal Gear Solid, or the first Metroid, or the first Civilization... am I really going to enjoy these games?  Especially if I've played later games in the same franchise.  Before I've even begun, I'm now wondering if the whole idea is perhaps a big waste of time.  There are only so many hours in a week, and wouldn't I have more fun playing Split/Second than the original Gran Turismol?
 
Anyway.  I'm just wondering if anyone else has ever wanted to play "all the classics" they missed the first time and if they enjoyed themselves or not.  
 
For reference, here's the list:  Game Informer's Top 200 Games of All Time

 I didn't play the first Kane & Lynch game, but I'm peripherally aware of it (at least to the extent it was rumored to cause a notorious disagreement that eventually caused Giant Bomb to be a website).  I'm considerably more interested in its sequel, Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days, and checked out the demo at this year's E3.  My demo was a single-player (with bots) version of the Fragile Alliance multiplayer mode, in which a group of guys seek to rob a bunch of money and then get away with it.  The premise given (I'm not sure if this is variable or not) was that we were actually watching another group of crooks commit a robbery, with the intention of assaulting them and stealing their bounty.

Once you and your crew have successfully gotten the money, you can choose to work together to take out the police and make your getaway, or you can turn traitor, kill your buddies, and take their share for yourself.  Since I was playing with bots anyway, it wasn't a very hard decision.  As soon as I was in a situation where there were none of my "friends" behind me, I opened fire.  They all instantly turned into red dots on my minimap, and alternated between firing back at me and continuing their escape.  I took a few down, looted their bodies, and found my own getaway car (I think there are a few).  From there, I once again took the low road and chose to betray my driver and keep his portion for myself.  In the end, you're ranked in your match by how much money you ended up with, as well as the usual kills/deaths/etc.

The gameplay itself felt solid, if unremarkable.  This is a cover-based third-person shooter, and plays as such.  What I really liked about the demo was the visual style.  It has an interesting sort of washed out color palette, and I do like the shakiness and artifacting that happens when the action gets heavy, as if your viewpoint was that of an unnamed cameraman with an imperfect digital recorded.  I wish something of the single-player campaign had also been available, but assuming it's at least competently executed, this feels like a world I'd like to spend some more time in.

If you have any questions, comment and I will try to answer.